Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Brennan served in the Clinton and W admin before the Obama admin. Brennan has held a half dozen important posts and had some key jobs where things didn't go right. E.G. he was CIA chief in Saudi A when the Khobar Towers were bombed. He coordinated a bizarre XMAS 2003 alert that seemed to be based on bad intel. He ticked off a lot of CIA desk jockeys along the way. The far left considers him the force behind the Obama era renditions, maximal drone strikes, etc.

#6 Petreaus, Brennan, and the like are Obama's minefield "tramplers". Like the Soviet Penal Battalions [Shtrafbats] assigned to each Army Group during the Great Patriotic War, they are expendable and usually did not survive the assault.

Employment of Shtrafbats [oftentimes unarmed] accomplished a number of goals. They caused the Germans to expend valuable ammunition. They insulted the pure troops of the Soviet Motherland from withering fire and snipers, and they provided an example for potential dissidents within the Soviet ranks.

#8 Here is the memo from DOJ. It has NBC written all over it but since it is a government document, it would seem that it is in the public domain. NBC does not own it. If the mods think this should not be posted, please feel free to take it down. It would seem that American citizens should be able to review such policy since it most likely affects their Constitutional rights. I don't have a problem drone-zapping our enemies. Such warfare has, at times, served us well in the past. However, American citizens do have Constitutional rights and the Bill of Rights insures due process. Our country begins to get into dangerous areas when one man decides which American citizen lives or dies. It seems like a short walk to the point where someone decides to use drones on American citizens in the U.S. without due process. The Patriot Act has already eroded many citizen rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Memo Link.

#14 The alynskyite sons of bitches want to make us choose between neutering the army with traditional law enforcement limitations for the heat of battle and giving law enforcement the ability to shoot first and ask questions later.

#16 I've reached the point where I think if they don't want to acknowledge state sponsors, it's a criminal problem and they can send some NYPD detectives to the NWFP to arrest the miscreants. Maybe they can make sure all the sodas are under 16 ounces at the same time.

#20 Its all about protecting the Saudi monarchy - a bunch of dictators who maintain their power through oppression and extremist islam.

Its ironic that the "free" US is using its military to defend one of the most oppressive regimes on earth.

While we'd rather have the Saudi royals attempt to tame the average troglodyte Saudi citizen, the reality is that they're not Allah and the Saudi citizen only worships Allah. The Shah's fall from power (and Khomeini's ascent to the throne) is a prime example of what happens when a ruler forget that in a Muslim state, anyone who flouts Islam's strictures runs afoul of the hoi polloi.

And the idea that we're defending Saudi Arabia is a lot like the leftist charge that only the stated approval of American proconsuls kept right wing dictators standing, during the Cold War. The Saudi royals defend themselves fine - they've got plenty of oil money and can hire unlimited numbers of holy warriors from across the ummah to fight off an invasion. And when was the last time we intervened in a Saudi civil war? Does anyone really think the Saudi citizen thinks of American approval as a good thing? We're not defending Saudi Arabia - we're preventing the establishment of a unitary Islamic empire across the Middle East, under the rule of clerics bent on global conquest by any means necessary, incorporating attacks that would make 9/11 look like a pinprick.

Anyone in a legally declared warzone has waived their rights to due process.

Yet, these are the same people who've whined that there is no legal state of war because no formal document employing the clear words 'declaration of war' has been passed by the Legislative branch. Yes, I know 'authorization to use military force' has but it's about the mindset of those who trashed Bush for 8 long years on the point which included Donk members of the House and Senate.

#22 John QC:However, American citizens do have Constitutional rights and the Bill of Rights insures due process. Our country begins to get into dangerous areas when one man decides which American citizen lives or dies.

I think this issue is a red herring. All these people rejected the United States, and were trying to kill Americans and destroy America. They were legitimate targets in the war on terror.

During WW2 there were a number of US citizens that served the Axis. See the "Band of Brothers" miniseries for an example. The Japanese Armed Forces had large numbers of US citizens. Some served as Kamikazies. In all cases we simply treated them as enemy personnel.

#23 During WW2 there were a number of US citizens that served the Axis. See the "Band of Brothers" miniseries for an example. The Japanese Armed Forces had large numbers of US citizens. Some served as Kamikazies. In all cases we simply treated them as enemy personnel.

The one thing that drone targets have in common is that they are all self-professed jihadists in al Qaeda-infested zones. Some of the views here about drone targeting are analogous to the idea that if GI's can summarily execute armed Americans without trial while in combat zones (using sniper rifles, LAW's or grenade launchers), they can do the same to armed Americans at home. I think it's clear there's a line they haven't crossed for 200+ years, during which our forebears fought a score of conflicts. It wouldn't even be an issue if our electronic imaging skills weren't extremely well-developed - we'd be carpet-bombing entire al Qaeda-infested regions whether or not they were occupied by Americans.

#25 I don't trust this admin, and I wouldn't trust any gov't admin w/this. The gov't needs to do more than "accuse". This is a slippery slope. We already have recorded drone flights conducting surveillance over private citizen residences in this country. Obamacare, bankster fraud, printing our way outta debt, immigration insanity, and gun grab 2013. Our Founders are repenting from heaven as Adams would say.

#26 Don't forget that the Homeland Security Department (along with the [in]Justice department) view returning Vets, and conservatives and 'teabaggers' in general as potential, if not actual, terrorists.

#27 I second those comments of Broadhead6 and CrazyFool. IMO, it is the duty of the citizen to prevent the government from going tyrannical on us. Is there a good reason to trust our government without question? Some serve others and their country, while for others power and control is the ultimate aphrodisiac. It is good to question the motives and actions of men and women in government.

#33 Yet, these are the same people who've whined that there is no legal state of war because no formal document employing the clear words 'declaration of war' has been passed by the Legislative branch. Yes, I know 'authorization to use military force' has but it's about the mindset of those who trashed Bush for 8 long years on the point which included Donk members of the House and Senate.

OK, we have authorizations for Afghanistan and Iraq. Anything for Pakistan or Yemen?

Iff the Islamist Hard Boyz are still going to be sent to GITMO, what Foreign Country(s) will Americans = Amerikans end up being sent to for interrogation + detention by the US Govt - you know, Foreign Govts as "observed" by the CIA???

#39 The reason I'm pointing this out is that I'm tired of the whole argument that The Conservatives are wrong, there are no real enemies, they're all racists, but... oh, we just have to kill the people on this list.... just because.

#41 The issue isn't really what's been done today. They've probably only knocked off a few US citizens to date (and really maybe only one).

The real issue is what a future president COULD decide to do with a drone. Why is a "US terrorist on American soil" any less dangerous in the eyes of the Gov't than a "US terrorist on foreign soil"? Answer ... he's not. He's potentially a lot more dangerous. There's nothing stopping them from using a drone to knock off suspects in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. Those geographical areas are "unreachable" - aren't they?? They sure look that way - if you're sitting in an office in Virginia or DC.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.